Starkman v. City of Long Beach

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
CitationStarkman v. City of Long Beach, 148 A.D.3d 1070, 50 N.Y.S.3d 148 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Decision Date22 March 2017
Docket Number2015-01328, Index No. 16834/10.
Parties Marshall STARKMAN, appellant, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, et al., respondents.

Neil H. Greenberg & Associates, P.C., Westbury, NY (Justin M. Reilly of counsel), for appellant.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, NY (Nicholas M. Cardascia and Glenn A. Kaminska of counsel), for respondents.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bruno, J.), entered November 24, 2014, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the principal sums of only $100,000 for past medical expenses, $200,000 for past loss of earnings, $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $200,000 for future medical expenses, $450,000 for future loss of earnings, and $750,000 for future pain and suffering.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof awarding damages for past pain and suffering in the principal sum of $500,000, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof awarding damages for future pain and suffering in the principal sum of $750,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial on the issue of damages for past and future pain and suffering, unless within 30 days after service upon the defendants of a copy of this decision and order, the defendants serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, a written stipulation consenting to increase the verdict as to damages for past pain and suffering from the principal sum of $500,000 to the principal sum of $750,000, and for future pain and suffering from the principal sum of $750,000 to the principal sum of $1,500,000, and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly; in the event that the defendants so stipulate, then the judgment, as so increased and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On May 26, 2010, the defendant Paul DeMarco, a City of Long Beach Police Officer, was patrolling the beach in a patrol car when he struck and ran over the plaintiff, who was lying on the beach in a lounge chair. The plaintiff was taken to the hospital where imaging tests revealed that he had sustained three broken ribs and fractures of the transverse processes of the C6, C7, and T1 vertebrae. The imaging also revealed what was described as "degenerative changes" of the spine including herniations of the cervical discs at the C5–C6 and C6–C7 levels along with osteophysis, disc space narrowing, and narrowing of the spinal canal.

The plaintiff subsequently was examined by an orthopedic surgeon and 17 months after the accident he underwent a multi-level cervical fusion surgery to treat the disc herniations that were believed to be causing continued neurological pain. When the bone failed to properly fuse, a second surgery was performed 15 months later which successfully fused the vertebrae. The plaintiff, however, continued to experience neck and back pain.

After this Court awarded summary judgment on the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiff (see Starkman v. City of Long Beach, 106 A.D.3d 1076, 1077, 965 N.Y.S.2d 609 ), a trial on the issue of damages was held from January 15, 2014, to February 14, 2014. The plaintiff presented expert evidence from his treating physicians as to the injuries he claimed to have sustained as a result of the accident. He also presented evidence pertaining to his past and future medical expenses and lost earnings. Expert witnesses called by the defendants disagreed that the plaintiff's condition and pain was caused by the accident and testified that fusion surgery on the pre-existing herniated discs may have only worsened the plaintiff's condition. The defense experts also disagreed with the amounts computed by the plaintiff's experts for future medical expenses as well as their contention that the plaintiff could never return to work. The jury returned a verdict finding that the plaintiff had sustained damages consisting of $100,000 for past medical expenses, $200,000 for past loss of earnings, $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $200,000 for future medical expenses...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
25 cases
  • Quijano v. Am. Transit Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 22, 2017
    ...must be supported by competent evidence which establishes the need for, and the cost of, medical care" ( Starkman v. City of Long Beach, 148 A.D.3d 1070, 1072, 50 N.Y.S.3d 148 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Pilgrim v. Wilson Flat, Inc., 110 A.D.3d 973, 974, 973 N.Y.S.2d 738 ). "Evi......
  • Munzon v. Victor at Fifth, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 30, 2018
    ...of medical care. The evidence provided by the plaintiff's treating physician was not purely speculative (see Starkman v. City of Long Beach, 148 A.D.3d 1070, 50 N.Y.S.3d 148 ; Peat v. Fordham Hill Owners Corp., 110 A.D.3d 643, 974 N.Y.S.2d 61 ), and the jury was entitled to credit that test......
  • Tarpley v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 20, 2019
    ...indicated herein (see CPLR 5501[c] ; see generally Peterson v. MTA, 155 A.D.3d at 798–799, 64 N.Y.S.3d 266 ; Starkman v. City of Long Beach, 148 A.D.3d 1070, 50 N.Y.S.3d 148 ; Stanisich v. New York City Tr. Auth., 73 A.D.3d 737, 900 N.Y.S.2d 422 ; cf. Loja v. Lavelle, 132 A.D.3d 637, 17 N.Y......
  • Zhou v. Tuxedo Ridge, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 19, 2020
    ...must be supported by competent evidence which establishes the need for, and the cost of, medical care’ " ( Starkman v. City of Long Beach, 148 A.D.3d 1070, 1072, 50 N.Y.S.3d 148, quoting Pilgrim v. Wilson Flat, Inc., 110 A.D.3d 973, 974, 973 N.Y.S.2d 738 ). Jury awards for past pain and suf......
  • Get Started for Free